COMMON CORE: EXTENDING THE DIALOGUE
Gwendolyn Y. Turner
“I think it’s a mixed bag,” Youngblood {Missouri ASCD President} says about teachers’ concerns. “It’s not going to be where we have to throw everything out and start all over again. Missouri is in pretty good shape, and I think mostly what you hear are concerns and fears from teachers because they don’t know quite know what’s happening yet.” (Sloan, 2010, pg.5)
Background
Missouri was one of the earliest states to adopt the Common Core State Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010), and classroom teachers need to have a clear understanding of their implications for literacy teaching and learning. This paper provides an overview of some of the issues and implications for teachers.
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) describe what students are expected to learn at every grade level. Key concepts indicate that the CCSS: (a) are aligned with college and workforce expectations, (b) are focused and coherent, (c) include rigorous content and application of knowledge through higher-order skills, (d) build upon strengths of current state standards, (e) are informed by standards in other top performing countries, and (f) are evidenced-based (CCSS, 2010).
Missouri has adopted the Missouri Core Academic Standards (CAS) as part of their CCSS. Missouri’s CAS are designed to help kindergarten through 12th grade students gain the knowledge and skills they will need for college, post secondary training, and careers. According to the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MoDESE), these standards, which go into effect during the 2014-2015 school year, must make up 85% of Missouri’s standards for English/language arts (ELA) and math, and school districts should begin now aligning their ELA curriculum, instruction, and assessments to the CAS (MoDESE, 2012).
Even though 45 states, 4 territories, Department of Defense Schools and the District of Columbia have adopted the CCSS (CCSS 2010), Berkin (2012) and Gewertz (2012) conclude that many educators just do not know what these changes will mean for their individual classrooms. The following comments explore some of the issues, implications, and suggestions for teachers of literacy and the English language arts.
Issues
“Providing teachers with real training and templates, not scripts and worksheets, and meaningful opportunities to work together to implement strategies that will improve student learning, are critical components of any strategy to implement the common core. We will fail if we do not do both” (Phillips & Hughes, 2012, pg. 12).
In it’s white paper, Literacy Implementation Guidance for the ELA Common Core State Standards, the International Reading Association acknowledges that many challenging and confusing issues have arisen about the implementation of the Common Core State Standards, and that it is imperative for classroom teachers to not only understand them, but the best practices for both instruction and assessment (IRA’s CCSS Committee, 2012). Several literacy researchers (Gewertz, 2012; Long, 2011; Shanahan, 2011; Strickland, 2012) have identified key issues that must be addressed: (a) text complexity and use of evidence, (b) what comprises the foundational reading skills, (c) what constitutes academic vocabulary, (c) comprehension and close reading of text, (d) production and distribution of writing, (e) role of disciplinary literacy, (f) texts presented in a variety of multimedia formats, (g) role of fiction versus nonfiction text, and (h) assessment. As states transition from No Child Left Behind, Berkin (2012) raises two additional issues that teachers must grapple with. First, because of the depth of the standards and the differences that might exist between CCSS and state standards, both novice and experienced teachers will have to engage in new ways of teaching and will need on-going support for this. Secondly, publishers are repurposing old materials and indicating that they are aligned with the Common Core, and decisions about materials need to be made carefully. Morrell (2012) reminds English language arts teachers, that part of our responsibility is to help students acquire the 21st-century literacies without abandoning the more traditional literacies that have defined education for centuries. Because of the rapid pace in which many of these standards will need to be implemented, educators will need time to discuss and learn new methods with sustained support and training, if districts are to be successful (Post, 2012/2013). Developing standards is just the first aspect of a very complex educational process in which resources, existing practices, and educator preparation will have to be revisited and revised if the CCSS are to be achieved.
Implications for literacy teaching and learning
“The standards are pushing us to examine our practices, and examine them we must. We must push ourselves in the same way we are being expected to push our students. We educators must thoughtfully read the complex common-core documents in their entirety, write rigorous lessons plans, and listen critically to those who are trying to help us learn and change”. (Strasser & Dobbertin, 2012, pg. 14)
One major implication is that Missouri teachers will need to rethink how existing teaching and learning practices have to be modified to align with the CAS. Even with crosswalks that help to frame the CAS with Grade Level Expectations, Course Level Expectations, Show-me Standards, and assessments, teacher professional development and processing time will be essential. In all schools, Berkin (2012) indicates that teachers must realize that with the new Common Core Standards, text materials will be more complex with a wider range of genres and formats. Students will be expected to engage in close reading and respond to evidence-based questioning using authentic texts in a variety of multimedia formats. Students will only achieve this if both ELA/literacy and content area teachers are ready to provide appropriate instruction. Gewertz (2012) argues that because literacy will no longer be the responsibility of English language arts and literacy teachers, that content area teachers will have to share responsibility in the achievement of students. All teachers will have to know the literacy proficiencies of their students, the demands of the texts, and the context in which the literacy is used (McKenna & Robinson, 2009). In his commentary on Common Core vs. Common Sense, Wolk (2012) argues that neither experienced teachers nor prospective teachers have been trained to teach in ways that the new standards require.
IRA President, Cummins (2012/2013) proposes that teachers will have to become lifelong learners as they stay current on research and work more collaboratively with their colleagues to learn new practices to meet these standards. Cummins proposes that teachers understand the value of using challenging text, purposely select classroom texts, and dig deeper in these texts so that students can learn to examine concepts from multiple perspectives. One major premise of the CCSS that teachers must know is how to teach with texts that students struggle to read (Shanahan, 2011). Missouri teachers would do well to heed advice from both Cummins and Shanahan.
Teachers are encouraged to carefully explore existing exemplars that provide some guidance for developing their own classroom materials (Crawford, Galiatsos, Lewis, & Ottesen, 2011; Phillips & Wong, 2010). MoDESE (website) maintains that the standards do not require school districts to use specific curriculum or teaching methods. These decisions are left up to the individual districts. Instead the Missouri’s Core Academic Standards are designed to provide a “blueprint” for English language arts instruction within and across grade levels. MoDESE (website) has provided a roadmap that outlines four key literacy domains across grade levels with anchors: (a) Reading, (b) Writing, (c) Speaking and Listening, and (d) Language. Three major shifts in literacy instruction and assessment will be occurring in Missouri schools because of the Core Academic Standards: determining text complexity, close reading and text dependent questions, and opinion and argument writing. As Missouri teachers begin to explore avenues that will allow them to address these shifts in literacy, MoDESE provides sample ELA curriculum projects and units that can serve as models. These sample ELA curriculum units, which are created by Missouri educators, expand across grade levels and include teaching strategies, activities, supporting resources, and both summative and formative assessments. According to MoDESE schools can adopt the model units, revise them to fit their own needs, or use them as resources (http://dese.mo.gov/ccr/modelcurriculum.html). Two major aspects of the implementation of the new CAS will be providing greater teacher collaboration and better instructional materials to meet these Standards.
Conclusions
While no one set of exemplars exist for implementation of these new Common Core State Standards, Missouri, at least, has provided a starting place with their Model Curriculum Project. As teachers explore all of the ramifications of implementing the new Standards in their classrooms, the dialogue needs to continue on how best to provide this new path to college and career readiness. Phillips and Hughes (2012) remind us that the real challenge of implementing CCSS will be for teachers not policymakers.
In describing a planning framework to meet the Common Core State Standards, Strickland (2012) maintains that the Standards do not define how teachers should teach, what the instructional content should be, the interventions needed, nor the support needed for either special needs or English language learners. Instead CCSS provide a “shared and consistent vision of what students should be able to do. They provide guidance for educators and for those who shape the policy to support educational infrastructures”. (Strickland, 2012, pg. 25). CCSS should help to establish a school’s curriculum; it is not the curriculum (Wessling, 2013).
As the bar is raised on what we expect students to know in order to become college and career ready, this is the time to engage in thoughtful and decisive actions on how we will help ELA/literacy and content teachers prepare to address the CCSS. Hopefully, as Missouri moves ahead with the implementation of the new CAS, many of the issues will be explored, and the dialogue will continue.
References
Berkin, A. (2012, September 7). Quick guide to the Common Core: Key expectations explained. How the Common Core will change the way teachers teach and students learn. Education Week: Spotlight on Literacy and the Common core. 15-16. Retrieved from: (http://www.edweek.org/ew/marketplace/products/edweek_spotlights.html)
Common Core State Standards Initiative (n.d.) (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states)
Cummins, C. (December 2012/January 2013). Celebrating teachers: Common Core and teachers making a difference. Reading Today, 30(3), 2-3.
Gewertz, C. (2012, September 26). Common standards drive new reading approaches. Education Week: Spotlight on Literacy and the Common Core.1-3. Retrieved from: http://www.edweek.org/ew/marketplace/products/edweek_spotlights.html
I nternational Reading Association Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Committee. (2012). Literacy implementation guidance for the ELA Common Core State Standards [White paper]. Retrieved from (http://www.reading.org/Libraries/association-documents/ira_ccss_guidelines.pdf).
Crawford, G., Galiatsos, S., Lewis, A., & Ottesen, K. (2011). The 1.0 Guidebook to LDC linking secondary core content to the Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from: http://www.literacydesigncollaborative.org/.
Long, R. (2011, August/September). Common Core State Standards: Approaching the assessment issue, Reading Today, 29 (1), 23-24.
McKenna, M. & Robinson, R. (2009). Teaching through text: Reading and writing in the content areas. Boston: Pearson.
Morrell, E. (2012). 21st-Century literacies, critical media pedagogies, and language arts. The Reading Teacher, 66(4), 300-302.
MoDESE (2012). Missouri Core Academic Standards: Preparing students for colleges and careers—New standards for Missouri schools. Retrieved from
http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/curriculum/Common_Core.html
MoDESE (2012). Missouri Model Curriculum. Retrieved from http://dese.mo.gov/ccr/modelcurriculum.html
Phillips, V. & Hughes, R. (2012, December 5). Teacher collaboration: The essential common-core ingredient. Education Week Spotlight on Implementing Common Standards, Retrieved from: http://www.edweek.org/ew/marketplace/products/edweek_spotlights.html)
Phillips, V. & Wong, C. (2010). Common core standards, assessment and instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(5), 37-42.
Post, M. (December 2012/January 2013). Managing change, implementing promise. Reading Today, 30 (3), 4-5.
Shanahan, T. (2011, August/September). Common core standards: Are we going to lower the fences or teach kids to climb. Reading Today. 29(1), 20-21.
Sloan, W. (2010). Coming to terms with Common Core Standards. ASCD INFObrief. 16(4). 5. Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/newsletters/policy-priorities/vol16/issue4/full/Coming-to-Terms-with-Common-Core-Standards.aspx
Strasser, D., & Dobbertin, C. (2012, July 10). Four myths about the ELA Common- Core Standards. Education Week Spotlight on Literacy and the Common Core. Retrieved from: (http://www.edweek.org/ew/marketplace/products/edweek_spotlights.html)
Strickland, D. (2012, February/March). Planning curriculum to meet the Common Core State Standards. Reading Today. 29(4) 25-26.
Wessling, S.B (2013, January 16). Implementing the common core: Moving the instructional shifts for the ELA/Literacy Standards from words to actions. ASCD’s Getting to the Core Webinar series. Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/professional-development/webinars.aspx
Wolk, R. (2012, December 5). Common Core vs. Common Sense. Education Week: Spotlight on implementing common standards. Pgs. 12-13. Retrieved from (http://www.edweek.org/ew/marketplace/products/edweek_spotlights.html)
